Gays about 3% of the population in California according to UCLA study; 1% in nation

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Because "gay" marriage completely remakes the institution of marriage and the legal arguments to obtain it have made marriage a "civil right" for the individual, not an institution for the protection of children. Re-interpreting marriage as a "civil right" will support those who want polygamy when they finally get their movement going in a serious way.

This remaking of the institution would be true no matter how large the percentage of gays there were and in terms of the underlying legal logic, the actual number of gays makes no difference. However, the number of gays did make a difference to the American public: people are more inclined to support change if the group needing the change is perceived as a significant portion of society. That may not be legally fair, but that is how politics works.

For years, the GLBT community has used a 10% figure to inflate the significance of their group, their movement, and the perception of a civil rights travesty. This was a strategy to convince people that there was really a problem for a significant portion of society. If the public knew that the actual figure was closer to 1%, they might have had different ideas on how to deal with the issue.

Activists in general create or embroider "facts" in order to get public support. We have now seen two such "embroideries": the Matthew Shepard case (a GLBT-internal murder involving meth) and now the number of actual GLBTs for which this nation has turned its laws upside down.

It is possible that the American judiciary would have granted "gay marriage" no matter what the percentage of GLBTs, but the American people might have reacted differently and might have protested more effectively and with more conviction.

I'm upset that I am not allowed to have an opposite sex domestic partner and add her to my health insurance without being married. Even in states where gay marriage and civil unions are legal that is not a requirement for same sex domestic partners. If I was gay I could add my same sex domestic partner and his/her/it's children to my policy. It's a clear case of favoritism for gays. Of course they do limit you from changing partners on your policy more then twice a year. That could be a problem in both situations.

Until it was decided in WWII and other times that Jews would not have rights no matter what. Don't think you never have to demand your rights.

Uh, we're talking in the US, not Germany, Lanie.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Explain how you have convinced yourself of that.

Well, aside from the fact that it's true? America has never had the kind of de jure antisemitism that you find in European or Arab countries. For one thing, the absence of a state religion and the prohibition on religious tests for office freed us to compete. That's not to say that there wasn't antisemitism in specific institutions or professions; the Ivy League schools established quotas specifically to reduce the number of Jews admitted, because Jews tended to meet objective standards of admission at a higher rate than other groups. In fact, one of the major schisms between Jews and blacks is the use of quotas in affirmative action, specifically because these discriminate against Jews to a far greater extent than they do other whites.

Now, I will concede that being gay was, until very recently, illegal, and you were subjected to discrimination, but redefining marriage in order to accommodate your self-esteem issues is simply an attack on the societal norms that gay activists (and other leftists) see as a threat, not to equality, but to hegemony in the culture. Even terms like "heteronormativity" seek to undermine the societal norms by casting them as suspect in light of a liberation movement, but the norms of society are just that, norms. It is one thing to say that gays should be allowed to pursue their own relationships, another to demand that those relationships be accorded legal equality to marriage, and therefore to redefine marriage to the point where it becomes so elastic that it no longer has any meaning.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Eventually the answer will be "None." Today, it varies with geography.

And when that happens, the resulting sexual chaos will have driven birthrates to the point where we can no longer maintain our own society.

Well, aside from the fact that it's true? America has never had the kind of de jure antisemitism that you find in European or Arab countries.

You mean apart from covenants banning sales of homes to Jews, commercial and private clubs which don't allow Jews, the notion of the international Jewish banking conspiracy, the general association of Jews with communism (and surely you aren't kidding yourself that the right wing indictment of the ACLU doesn't have an unspoken component), the association of Jewish doctors with abortions, acts of violence and vandalism towards Jews ... just what kind of fantasy world are you living in?

in philadelphia

in Canada

Billy Graham and Nixon

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
A 1973 conversation between President Nixon and evangelist Billy Graham about Jews, laden with critical references including a Biblical verse on the "synagogue of Satan," has put the aging, frail Graham back in unwelcome headlines

Housing

Richard Ornstein, a Jewish refugee from Austria, contracted to purchase a home for his family in the Sand Point Country Club area of Seattle in late 1952. Unknown to both Ornstein and the seller, the property’s deed contained a neighborhood-wide restrictive covenant barring the sale or rental of the home to non-Whites and people of Jewish descent.

Country clubs aimed to retain ethnic characteristics and intended to distinguish “those who are in from those who are out.”[44] Although diversity is becoming more apparent within the gates of country clubs, it has been a slow process. Clubs constantly denied admission to Jews, regardless of background or wealth.[45] In 1962 Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith inspected 803 country clubs and found only 224 clubs to be nondiscriminatory.[46] The majority of the clubs inspected excluded Jews while others had quotas, which prevented Jewish sub-culture from forming within a country club.[47] However, this resulted in the formation of exclusively Jewish country clubs, further perpetuating the problem of segregation.

Discrimination Against Jews in Employment Reported in Cincinnati
August 26, 1958
CINCINNATI (Aug. 25)
Discrimination against Jews seeking employment in firms owned by non-Jews is “a widespread problem” in this area, according to a report submitted here to a state commission investigating the status of civil rights in Ohio.
The evidence of discrimination was submitted to Gov. O’Neill’s Advisory Commission on Civil Rights by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Cincinnati. The Governor’s commission sat here to discuss questions involving employment of minority groups in the area. The commission was set up last April to study the status of civil rights in Ohio. It has made employment discrimination its first order of business.

You mean apart from covenants banning sales of homes to Jews, commercial and private clubs which don't allow Jews, the notion of the international Jewish banking conspiracy, the general association of Jews with communism (and surely you aren't kidding yourself that the right wing indictment of the ACLU doesn't have an unspoken component), the association of Jewish doctors with abortions, acts of violence and vandalism towards Jews ... just what kind of fantasy world are you living in?

in philadelphia

in Canada

Billy Graham and Nixon

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
A 1973 conversation between President Nixon and evangelist Billy Graham about Jews, laden with critical references including a Biblical verse on the "synagogue of Satan," has put the aging, frail Graham back in unwelcome headlines

Housing

Richard Ornstein, a Jewish refugee from Austria, contracted to purchase a home for his family in the Sand Point Country Club area of Seattle in late 1952. Unknown to both Ornstein and the seller, the property’s deed contained a neighborhood-wide restrictive covenant barring the sale or rental of the home to non-Whites and people of Jewish descent.

Country clubs aimed to retain ethnic characteristics and intended to distinguish “those who are in from those who are out.”[44] Although diversity is becoming more apparent within the gates of country clubs, it has been a slow process. Clubs constantly denied admission to Jews, regardless of background or wealth.[45] In 1962 Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith inspected 803 country clubs and found only 224 clubs to be nondiscriminatory.[46] The majority of the clubs inspected excluded Jews while others had quotas, which prevented Jewish sub-culture from forming within a country club.[47] However, this resulted in the formation of exclusively Jewish country clubs, further perpetuating the problem of segregation.

Discrimination Against Jews in Employment Reported in Cincinnati
August 26, 1958
CINCINNATI (Aug. 25)
Discrimination against Jews seeking employment in firms owned by non-Jews is “a widespread problem” in this area, according to a report submitted here to a state commission investigating the status of civil rights in Ohio.
The evidence of discrimination was submitted to Gov. O’Neill’s Advisory Commission on Civil Rights by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Cincinnati. The Governor’s commission sat here to discuss questions involving employment of minority groups in the area. The commission was set up last April to study the status of civil rights in Ohio. It has made employment discrimination its first order of business.

Originally Posted by Novaheart
You mean to prevent discrimination against Jews?

ODY - This is a false analogy.

Nobody had to overturn laws to prevent discrimination against Jews. We were perfectly capable of competing on our own.

Your comment is not relevant.

You left out this important part...which makes my answer very relevant.

America has never had the kind of de jure antisemitism that you find in European or Arab countries

You posted those pictures and started blabbering about Canada. Hence the post I made asking you to cite when the Feds have seized Jewish businesses or forced them to wear Gold Stars with the word "Jude" on them.